Nationwide, compulsary helmet wearing for insurance cover

[Steady rider]

In the past Nationwide has used pictures of children wearing helmets on their leaflets. It appears they are trying to influence behaviour.

[hufty]

N/W in helmet controversy
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/bills/ ... lmets.html

In that article, Roger Geffen of CyclingUK, is quoted as saying this and that about helmet compulsion being bad, and it not being an evidence-based policy change from Nationwide. But as I mentioned above, CyclingUK happily put their name to an insurance product where if you don't wear a cycle helmet you're not covered, so it's completely hypocritical to wade in against Nationwide in the prejudice vs evidence debate. Organisations should practice what they preach, eh Roger. Maybe there's a case for Cycling UK members to vote with their feet and not renew membership unless Cycling UK change their insurance product?

[Mick F]

In the event of a claim, it won't really matter how you try to characterise your cycling, only how the insurance company views it.

True.
Normal everyday cycling needs some sort of definition. Maybe it's in the small-print.

It wasn't written as normal OR everyday cycling, but suggesting instead that everyday cycling is normal cycling - ie that normal cycling is commonplace cycling.

[mjr]

I'm a member of Nationwide. I'm willing to pursue this through whatever democracy it has, if needed. Anyone else?

[landsurfer]

Good for you mjr ....
But i suspect that in sub para 146, subsection 3, item 22 of the Secondary Agreement part 6 ...you have agreed never to question the decisions of the Nationwide on pain of your first born being sold into slavery, and if no first born available any sibling or surviving family member.

[buryman]

I'm a member of Nationwide. I'm willing to pursue this through whatever democracy it has, if needed. Anyone else?

An email exchange has been started. "My concerns will be passed to a higher authority...."

[landsurfer]

I'm a member of Nationwide. I'm willing to pursue this through whatever democracy it has, if needed. Anyone else?

An email exchange has been started. "My concerns will be passed to a higher authority...."

I tried to bring a level of humour into this.

But seriously, i suspect members of the Nationwide, myself included, have agreed to this by default.
Which was the point i was trying to make ... badly ...

[gaz]

I'm a member of Nationwide. I'm willing to pursue this through whatever democracy it has, if needed. Anyone else?

They appear to have "Talkback" sessions to discuss members thoughts, suggestions and concerns. More here.

[Timsowter]

I have been trying to clarify this point with Nationwide as I am a flex plus account holder. It is clear that they mean any cycling including pootling down to the beach on a quiet sandy cycle track. They are quite happy to cover me should I wish to go off piste skiing with a guide with no requirement for a helmet.

Interestingly, they have told me this morning that if I had a car crash and was not wearing a seat belt I would not be covered. They don't mention this in the terms and conditions.

They don't know whether or not I would be covered if I was driving a car and I was speeding and suggested I contacted the insurance company directly.

[slowster]

When someone at the Nationwide decided it would be the right thing to do to encourage its members to wear helmets when cycling, and therefore to add an exclusion to their travel policy, I am sure that they did not realise that:

- there is not good overwhelming evidence in favour of compulsory helmet wearing
- how contentious this issue might prove to be, and
- that it would result in significant negative feedback/complaints from members and articles in the press.

Buryman above has been told by the Nationwide that his concerns will be passed to "a higher authority", and I suspect that the people in Nationwide now dealing with this will be primarily concerned with protection of its brand and reputation management (rather than the minutiae of negotiating insurance deals for members).

I think therefore that the best way to influence this would be if members and the public continue to raise this issue in social media and direct with Nationwide.

If the negative feedback about the exclusion were not bad enough in itself for the society, it's not difficult to envisage potential claims scenarios where this exclusion (and the now public fact that it was Nationwide's decision to introduce it: the insurer did not require it) will make for much much worse publicity.

Example 1 - a family go to the USA to stay with friends. The children of both families spend their time playing, and unknown to the parents they go out on their bikes at some point without helmets. The child of the visiting family is involved in an accident and major medical bills and repatriation costs are incurred which the family cannot afford. Nationwide tells the parents it will not pay (the fact that it will be the insurer that tells the parents the claim is not covered is beside the point - as far as the parents, the press and the public are concerned, it will be the Nationwide that is turning the claim down).

Example 2 - a member borrows a bike while on holiday in Europe to ride to the nearest shops. He doesn't have a helmet. He is severely injured by a hit and run driver and will require a medical charter flight to be repatriated. Even though he was not at fault for the accident, Nationwide will not pay.

The negative press and social media commentary that the Nationwide would experience from an incident like one of these scenarios will be a lot worse that it is experiencing now.

If I were the person in Nationwide with responsibilty for this now, I would withdraw the exclusion, and would seek to take a much less controversial approach if I still wanted to influence the behaviour of members, e.g. maybe send a leaflet out with the travel insurance details, which would give advice and tips on staying safe while on holiday including such advice as 'always wear a helmet when cycling' etc.

[Steady rider]

Weaknesses with a meta-analysis approach to assessing cycle helmets. Feb 2017 http://worldtransportjournal.com/wp-con ... eb-opt.pdf
the above report shows the evidence for helmet promotion is very weak.
It refers to;

In New Zealand, from 1989 to 2011, average time spent cycling (on roads and footpaths) fell by 79% for children aged 5-12 (from 28 to 6 minutes per person per week) and 81% for 13-17 year olds (52 to 10 mins/person/week).
Adult cycling declined from 8 to 5 minutes/person/week then trended back up to 8 minutes. Graphs of cycle use over time provide strong evidence that the requirement to wear a helmet discouraged cycling. The reductions in cycling were accompanied by increased injury rates. Between 1989 and 2012, fatal or serious injuries per million hours of cycling increased by 86% for children (from 49 to 91), 181% for teenagers (from 18 to 51) and 64% for adults (from 23 to 38).[i]

and

Robinson 1996 also refers to the incidence of hitting their head/helmet in a cycling accident was "significantly higher for helmet wearers (8/40 vs 13/476, i.e. 20% vs 2.7%, p 0.00001)". A bare head width of approximately 150mm may avoid contact compared to a helmeted head at approximately 200mm width. Helmet wearers often report hitting their helmets and the 7 fold increase may have long term effects that may not show up in a meta–analysis.

Erke and Elvik 2007[i] examined research from Australia and New Zealand and stated: "There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand, the increase is estimated to be around 14 per cent." The findings were based on six reports, four from when legislation was in place.

and

Ref 104 mentions;

A recent report detailed that cyclists wearing helmets had more than twice the odds of suffering an injury than cyclists not wearing helmets, (104) with an OR value 2.81, 95% CL =1.14, 6.94.

When there is evidence showing an increased accident rate per km cycled connected with helmet use, it should not be imposed as an insurance requirement for general cycling.

[mjr]

I've had a reply saying "this won't be reversed, but we have passed your comments on" at https://mobile.twitter.com/AskNationwid ... 3155317760 - not good enough, Nationwide!

[bertgrower]

I would like somebody who is a member of Nationwide to ask if they or their insurance brokers /underwrites would sign a undertaking that states that if a person who is covered by their travel insurance is involved in a cycling accident and it is proven in a court of law that the accident was caused by or the resulting injures made worse by the wearing of the helmet would nationwide it brokers /underwrites would pay out compensation?

BTW Would anybody use this type of insurance for travel inside the UK,if yes does this mean that you would be covered if you did not wear a helmet?

[bertgrower]

N/W in helmet controversy
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/bills/ ... lmets.html

In that article, Roger Geffen of CyclingUK, is quoted as saying this and that about helmet compulsion being bad, and it not being an evidence-based policy change from Nationwide. But as I mentioned above, CyclingUK happily put their name to an insurance product where if you don't wear a cycle helmet you're not covered, so it's completely hypocritical to wade in against Nationwide in the prejudice vs evidence debate. Organisations should practice what they preach, eh Roger. Maybe there's a case for Cycling UK members to vote with their feet and not renew membership unless Cycling UK change their insurance product?

CUK also promotes ride leader courses and events that requires cycle helmets.

[tomsumner49]

Does anyone know if this only applies to the FlexPlus Worldwide insurance and not the FlexAccount European travel cover?
I've looked on the Nationwide website and can't see any mention of changes to the latter.